Saturday, October 08, 2005

The World Watches The Eclipse

Television aerials are silhouetted against a darkened sky as the sun is covered by the moon during a solar eclipse in Gernika, northern Spain, October 3, 2005. An annular eclipse differs from a total eclipse in that the moon appears too small to completely cover the sun. As a result, the moon is surrounded by an intensely brilliant ring or annulus formed by the outer perimeter of the sun's disk. The last annular eclipse visible from Spain took place on the 1st of April 1764 and the next one will occur on the 26th of January 2028. REUTERS/Vincent West

Posted by Picasa

Jammu University students watch the solar eclipse through X-ray sheets in Jammu, India, Monday, Oct. 3, 2005.
 Posted by Picasa

A young priest puts blades of grass in 1001 vessels containing milk and honey, preparing them for offering to the temple deity at the Gayathri Temple in Bangalore, India, Monday, Oct. 3, 2005. A special prayer was held at the temple to overcome adverse effects of the solar eclipse for those born under a particular astrological configuration, according to Hindu mythology. (AP Photo/Gautam Singh)
 Posted by Picasa

Spanish tourists watch an annular solar eclipse using regular sun glasses near near the Eiffel tower in Paris.
 Posted by Picasa

A dog wears protective eyeglasses during the annular eclipse seen in the planetarium of Madrid Monday Oct. 3, 2005.
 Posted by Picasa

People use special solar glasses as they look at an annular solar eclipse in Pontevedra, northwestern Spain, October 3, 2005.
 Posted by Picasa

A Samburu woman uses a smoked glass to observe an annular solar eclipse at Archer's Post, 350 km (214 miles) north of the capital Nairobi, October 3, 2005.
 Posted by Picasa

Syrians watch the solar eclipse in Syria on Monday, Oct. 3, 2003 through special filtering papers distributed by the Ministry of Health to those who want to see the eclipse and warned not to look at the sun for more than five seconds.
 Posted by Picasa

Total Eclipse Of The Soul

A veiled Moslem women uses a pair of special glasses to observe an annular solar eclipse in the Jordanian capital Amman October 3, 2005. Jordanians on Monday saw a portion of an annular eclipse, which occurs when the moon covers the centre of the sun but not its edges, leaving a ring of fire surrounding the black circle of the moon. REUTERS/Ali Jarekji Posted by Picasa

Iranian Stock Market In Free-Fall
As Nuclear Crisis Deepens

Well, how will a totalitarian regime deal with this problem?

TEHRAN, Oct 2 (Reuters) - Investors are bailing out of Iran's stock market, preferring gold and foreign bourses while international pressure ratchets up against Tehran's disputed atomic programme, traders said on Sunday.

The total bourse capitalisation had dropped to $38.2 billion dollars on Sunday, down from $45 billion in late June when conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won a landslide presidential election victory.

The TEPIX all-share index stood at 10,151 points on Sunday, down 27 percent in the 14 months from August 2004, when it stood at 13,880.

"Everything depends on the nuclear negotiations, and the market really craves good news," said Akbar Zarganinejad, the head of a leading brokerage.

Iran stands on the brink of referral to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions after failing to convince the world its atomic ambitions are peaceful. Iran insists it needs atomic technology to fuel power stations.

"Unfortunately, the small stockholders' fears can affect the share indices dramatically," Zarganinejad said.

He added the market had taken some solace from the appointment of former Economy Minister Tahmasb Mazaheri as a deputy minister charged with arresting the falls on the Tehran exchange.

Mazaheri held meetings with Tehran bourse officials on Saturday and is due to report to the cabinet on Sunday.

White Europeans? No!

A new study on anti-Semitic incidents in Europe brings out some unexpected truths:

The question of the identity and motives of attackers of Jews has occupied Jewish communities and organizations in recent years, as well as law enforcement authorities and researchers. In numerous incidents, the victims reported that their attackers appeared to be Arabs, and in France - mainly of North African origin.

These testimonies, and the fact that the steep rise in violent actions against Jews occurred just after the outbreak of the second intifada, led many to the conclusion that the clashes in the Middle East, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular, are the reason for the violent incidents against Jews in Europe. It seems that this conclusion was influenced to no small degree by the worldview of the speakers and writers, and by political needs.

Another thesis regards anti-Semitism in Europe as part of a campaign waged by radical Islam against the West. The findings of London police investigators challenge these assessments, which completely disregarded the local social and economic background to the acts of violence against Jews.

One important finding is that "white Europeans" - that is, non-Muslims - continue to be the central factor in the perpetration of hate crimes against Jews.

The second important finding is that the absolute majority of the perpetrators, including immigrants and children of immigrants, did not act as agents of an extremist group and carried out their actions without any advanced planning.

These findings are consistent with the study conducted in France by Jean-Christophe Rufin under the auspices of the French interior ministry. A salient characteristic of the incidents in both France and Britain is that many of the perpetrators are immigrants who arrived from countries that have no direct connection to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Moreover, the changes in the number of incidents from month to month were indeed influenced by developments in the Middle East, but also by other factors, such as the period of Jewish holidays. In any case, no change was evident in the characteristics of the incidents following developments in the Middle East.

Thus, the incidents related to the Middle East, such as the extreme anti-Israeli propaganda that includes anti-Semitic motifs, comprise only one catalyst for the feelings of hostility that are expressed, among other ways, in spontaneous violence. This conclusion leads to a very pessimistic feeling about the way anti-Semitic stereotypes are adopted by immigrants and their children in Europe.

On the other hand, the insight that this is not a "Middle Eastern import" or "Bin Ladenism," but rather a reflection of internal European problems, should motivate the Europeans to wage an educational battle against anti-Semitism. At the same time, it also should encourage Jewish leaders to try to promote dialogue with moderate Muslim leaders in Europe, while rejecting anti-Semitic stereotypes on the one hand, and Islamophobic generalizations on the other.

I remember a quote from Jacques Chirac a few years back:

“Stop saying that there is anti-Semitism in France. There is no anti-Semitism in France and, moreover, there are no anti-Semites in France.”

So, now we know that not only is there anti-Semitism in France, but it's perpetrated, in many cases, by real French people. Who woulda thunk it?

Positive Developments In Palestine

From Associated Press:

JERUSALEM - and the Palestinians were moving toward agreement on new security arrangements for Gaza's border with Egypt, officials from both sides said Saturday, a deal that could allow Palestinian residents of the coastal strip relatively free movement for the first time.

A deal to reopen the terminal will have to address the security concerns of Israel, which fears militants and weapons will reach Gaza more easily without the Israeli inspectors who once operated Rafah.

This concern was underscored in the days following the Israeli withdrawal. Border control broke down and thousands of Palestinians crossed freely in and out of Egypt without any security checks. With few exceptions, Palestinians have been barred from traveling to Egypt since order was restored.

Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom also said Saturday that Egypt is not doing enough to stop the flow of weapons into Gaza and that anti-tank rockets and shoulder-held missiles have reached the area.

"There is no doubt that the situation has improved, compared to the first days, but we still see a relatively free movement (of weapons)," he told Israel Radio.

Egypt and Israel negotiated a security arrangement, including the deployment of 750 Egyptian border guards, ahead of the Gaza pullout.

Under a compromise proposal brokered by international mediator James Wolfensohn, Palestinian travelers and exports leaving Gaza would go through Rafah, with foreign inspectors supervising the traffic.

Incoming goods would be rerouted through Kerem Shalom, an Israeli-run inspection point in the area where Gaza, Egypt and Israel converge.

Wolfensohn told Abbas on Friday that Israel had agreed in principle to the presence of European inspectors, said a Palestinian official who participated in the talks. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to talk to the media.

A senior Israeli official said Israel is open to the idea of foreign monitors on the border and the Wolfensohn plan is "one of the options" under consideration. Israel wants to have access to the terminal's computers to monitor who is entering and leaving Gaza, the official said, declining to be identified because of government rules.

I hope this happens, and soon. It's another step in creating a Palestinian state, which will mean they have to take responsibility for themselves. No more excuses. No more blaming their problems on others.

Here's some more good news:

Also Saturday, the Palestinians broke ground on their first major development project in Gaza since the withdrawal — a $100 million complex that will provide housing for 25,000 people. The development, funded by the United Arab Emirates, was being built on the former Jewish settlement of Morag and was expected to take two years to complete.

That's good. Jobs are being created, and there will be a new, apparently, nice place for people to live. Maybe the Palestinian people can start building some civic pride. That would be a positive step away from taking pride only in sucide bombers

Sometimes You Just Gotta Love Your Enemy

In a new Al Qaeda tape, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi lets us in on the distinction between "infidels" and "innocents." From Jihad Watch:

DUBAI - Al Qaeda frontman in Iraq Abu Musab Al Zarqawi has said Islam permits the killing of “infidel” civilians, according to an audiotape broadcast on the Internet early Saturday.

“In Islam, making the difference is not based on civilians and military, but on the basis of Muslims and infidels,” said the voice attributed to the fugitive leader who has a 25-million-dollar price on his head.

“The Muslim’s blood cannot be spilled whatever his work or place, while spilling the blood of the infidel, whatever his work or place, is authorized if he is not trustworthy,” said the tape, whose veracity could not be determined.

Infidels, huh? That pretty much means all of us, right? Well, thanks Abu Musab.

I'm telling ya, you just gotta love your enemy when he tells the truth.

These Are The Days Of Miracles And Wonders

This is the long-distance call. About fifteen years ago, Paul Simon wrote a song called Boy In The Bubble, which contained the following lyrics:

It was a slow day
And the sun was beating
On the soldiers by the side of the road
There was a bright light
A shattering of shop windows
The bomb in the baby carriage
Was wired to the radio

Today this story was brought to us by AP:

NEW YORK - Details emerged about an alleged plot to attack the city's subways with bombs hidden in bags and possibly baby strollers as local and federal officials jostled over the credibility of the threat.

A Department of Homeland Security memo obtained by The Associated Press said the attack was reportedly scheduled to take place on or around Sunday, with terrorists using timed or remote-controlled explosives hidden in briefcases, suitcases or in or under strollers.

More lyrics from Paul Simon's Boy In The Bubble:

These are the days of miracle and wonder
This is the long distance call
The way the camera follows us in slo-mo
The way we look to us all
The way we look to a distant constellation
That's dying in a corner of the sky
These are the days of miracle and wonder
And don't cry baby, don't cry
Don't cry

It was a dry wind
And it swept across the desert
And it curled into the circle of re-birth
And the dead sand
Falling on the children
The mothers and the fathers
And the automatic earth
These are the days of miracle and wonder
This is the long distance call
The way the camera follows us in slo-mo
The way we look to us all
The way we look to a distant constellation
That's dying in a corner of the sky
These are the days of miracle and wonder
And don't cry baby, don't cry
Don't cry

I'm starting to believe we are receiving a long-distance call of some sort.

Friday, October 07, 2005

Clouds roll in over a staue commerating the 1900 hurricane, before Hurricane Rita approaches in Galveston, Texas. Fearsome Hurricane Rita launched a fierce final assault on Texas and Louisiana, swirling with near 200 kilometers per hour (125 miles) winds and lashing a coastline bristling with vital oil and chemical plants(AFP/James Nielsen)

Posted by Picasa

My God, My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?

An Iraqi woman grieves next to the body of her 6 year old daughter killed by a car bomb in Samarra, Iraq, Friday Oct. 7 2005. Three other people from the same family were wounded in the explosion late Thursday.(AP Photo/Hameed Rasheed)

I guess scenes like this might explain why Al Qaeda is losing more support every day in Iraq, and why they are becoming more convinced they are losing the war.

Posted by Picasa

Is This Good News Or Bad?

The Intelligence community is having trouble finding enough Arabic speaking people to do all the translation they need:

Four years into the war on terrorism, the intelligence community admits it is still short of fluent speakers of critical languages, particularly Arabic.

Until the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the government didn't consider Arabic language skills a national security concern. Now officials are encountering myriad obstacles in trying to close the gap rapidly.

Arabic differs greatly from English and other Western languages. Arabic reads from right to left. One letter may take on three or four shapes, depending on where it appears in a word, and it has more than 20 dialects. Attaining the proficiency required by the government can take nearly four times longer than learning Spanish or French.

Many people who already knew Arabic were hired by the government and private-sector companies in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, but the government is seeking to hire thousands more such translators.

With that in mind, the government on Thursday opened a new facility at the University of Maryland's Center for Advanced Study of Language to find innovative ways of producing more Arabic speakers quickly.

CIA Director Porter Goss gave the introductory speech, lending a sort of imprimatur to the government's quest.

"I'm glad to be a small part in something that is a very, very big problem for me," Goss said.

While the facility will not offer language instruction, researchers will examine ways to speed up the learning process.

"The government is investing significant resources in training in Arabic," said Richard Brecht, the center's executive director. "But we need major breakthroughs to cut the time it takes to learn Arabic. We need major cognitive research."

Well, let's see. We have no shortage of Arabic speaking people in the United States, so why is it that we can't find Arabic to English translators? You have to wonder if maybe it's good news that the CIA can't find people they deem trustworthy to do this important work.

"Oh d-d-Dear, Why Do They Hate Me So?"
Norwegian Teacher Banned
From Wearing Star of David Necklace

From LGF:

A municipally employed teacher in Kristiansand has been prevented from wearing a Star of David around his neck. Kristiansand Adult Education Center, where the man works, ruled that the Jewish symbol could be deemed a provocation towards the many Muslim students at the school, Norwegian Broadcasting (NRK) reports.

Teacher Inge Telhaug said he feels this is a violation of his freedom of speech. “I can’t accept this. It is a small star, 16 millimeters (0.6 inches) that I have around my neck, usually under a T-shirt. I see it as my right to wear it,” Telhaug told NRK.

Telhaug teaches immigrants Norwegian language and culture at the education center. Telhaug is not Jewish. “I see it as the oldest religious symbol we have in our culture, because without Judaism there would be no Christianity,” [said] Telhaug.

The principal of the school, Kjell Gislefoss, feels that the Star of David can also be interpreted as a political symbol for the state of Israel, and is afraid the star can provoke and offend students, for example immigrants from the Palestinian territories.

“The Star of David would be a symbol for one side in what is perhaps the world’s most inflamed conflict at the moment. Many have a traumatic past that they have escaped and then we feel that if they are going to learn Norwegian then they can’t sit an at the same time be reminded of the things they have traveled from,” Gislefoss said.

Maybe the Norwegians could crawl under a rock and play dead, so the Muslims will leave them alone.

Posted by Picasa

BBC Spreads An Anti-American Libel

Yesterday, the BBC came out with the following story about George Bush:

President George W Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State, a new BBC series reveals.

In Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs, a major three-part series on BBC TWO (at 9.00pm on Monday 10, Monday 17 and Monday 24 October), Abu Mazen, Palestinian Prime Minister, and Nabil Shaath, his Foreign Minister, describe their first meeting with President Bush in June 2003.

Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

Abu Mazen was at the same meeting and recounts how President Bush told him: "I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state."

The series charts the attempts to bring peace to the Middle East, from President Bill Clinton's peace talks in 1999/2000 to Israel's withdrawal from Gaza last August.

Norma Percy, series producer of The 50 Years War (1998) returns, with producers Mark Anderson and Dan Edge, to tell the inside story of another seven years of crisis.

Presidents and Prime Ministers, their generals and ministers tell what happened behind closed doors as peace talks failed and the intifada exploded.

Two things about this story:

1) It is a pile of steaming, corn-laden feces,


2) It's an old story. I mean old.

Here's a post from CUANAS, circa December 28, 2004:

Haaretz International Slanders George Bush

From Haaretz International:

Abbas said that at Aqaba, Bush promised to speak with Sharon about the siege on Arafat. He said nobody can speak to or pressure Sharon except the Americans. According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said:

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

Why would Haaretz International publish such a ludicrous statement from Mahmoud Abbas without any qualification? This is incendiary. George Bush has never said anything of the like. And yet, in much of the world, people believe that he does go around saying things like this all the time.

If he were to have said anything like this, he would not have been elected President of the United States. End of story. Now, I understand, though, why people think we Americans are such fanatics. It's because foreign papers, including papers in Israel are, apparently, willing to print slanderous statements about the President we elected.

Yes, and here we are again. A foreign paper spreading this slanderous story about the American President. This is an anti-American libel. It is akin to racist hatred.

The truth is, George Bush has been criticized for his faith since he first ran for President, but never once has he ever used his interpretation of the Bible to justify any policy. The only time he has ever come close to doing so is when he states that the longing for Freedom beats in the breast of every human being. However, since that's pretty much what our Declaration of Independence is all about, it's kind of hard to criticize him for that.

The interesting thing about this is that Mahmoud Abbas probably thought this story about Bush would play well with the American people. After all, he reads the world's media. He thinks that the way we think. I'm sure he believes we're a nation of fanatics, just like his people. But, we're not.

And one final thing, why would the BBC choose to believe anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying Mahmoud Abbas over the leader of the free world?

Well, Mahmoud Abbas told me it's because the BBC told him that they are rooting for the Islamic Jihadis to push the Israelis into the sea. Yes, that's right. That's what Mahmoud told me.

Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas is given Nazi Salute by members of his party; Fatah. Posted by Picasa

Hezbollah Nazi Salute

Posted by Picasa

Imam Demands Apology for Mohammed Cartoons

From Fjordman:

Danish author Kåre Bluitgen had difficulties in getting artists to illustrate his book about Muhammad due to fear of reprisals from Islamic extremists.

Jyllandsposten, Denmark's largest newspaper, responded by asking 40 illustrators to make drawings of Muhammad, and published twelve in this Saturday's edition. But, of course, that's not the end of the story. Oh no.

Of course, we have to have the obligatory expression of humiliation and outrage from an Imam:

Daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten is facing accusations that it deliberately provoked and insulted Muslims by publishing twelve cartoons featuring the prophet Mohammed.

The newspaper urged cartoonists to send in drawings of the prophet, after an author complained that nobody dared to illustrate his book on Mohammed. The author claimed that illustrators feared that extremist Muslims would find it sacrilegious to break the Islamic ban on depicting Mohammed.

Twelve illustrators heeded the newspaper's call, and sent in cartoons of the prophet, which were published in the newspaper one week ago. Daily newspaper Kristeligt Dagblad said one Muslim, at least, had taken offence.

'This type of democracy is worthless for Muslims,' Imam Raed Hlayhel wrote in a statement. 'Muslims will never accept this kind of humiliation. The article has insulted every Muslim in the world. We demand an apology!'

Jyllands-Posten described the cartoons as a defence for 'secular democracy and right to expression'. Hlayhel, however, said the newspaper had abused democracy with the single intention of humiliating Muslims.

Lars Refn, one of the cartoonists who participated in the newspaper's call to arms, said he actually agreed with Hlayhel. Therefore, his cartoon did not feature the prophet Mohammed, but a normal Danish schoolboy Mohammed, who had written a Persian text on his schoolroom's blackboard.

'On the blackboard it says in Persian with Arabic letters that 'Jyllands-Posten's journalists are a bunch of reactionary provocateurs',' Refn said. 'Of course we shouldn't let ourselves be censored by a few extremist Muslims, but Jyllands-Posten's only goal is to vent the fires as soon as they get the opportunity. There's nothing constructive in that.'

Flemming Rose, cultural editor at the newspaper, denied that the purpose had been to provoke Muslim. It was simply a reaction to the rising number of situations where artists and writers censured themselves out of fear of radical Islamists, he said.

'Religious feelings cannot demand special treatment in a secular society,' he added. 'In a democracy one must from time to time accept criticism or becoming a laughingstock.'

It is not the first time Hlayhel has created headlines in Denmark. One year ago, he became the target of criticism from Muslims and non-Muslims alike, when he said in a sermon during Friday prayer, that Danish women's behaviour and dress invited rape.

Here's what imam Hlayhel has said before:

“Women who go to hairdressers will go to hell”

Raed Hleihel, an imam visiting from Århus, told men at the congregation to go home and make sure their wives and daughters draped every inch of their bodies with clothing.

‘I would like a Muslim girl to name one heavenly wise man, who permitted her to wear only a light veil over her hair and claim she was veiled, although her body was visible,’ Hleihel said. ‘A woman who wants to call herself a believer must cover herself completely, according to the sharia rules.’

The imam went as far as saying that women who went to the hairdresser’s and wore perfume would go to Hell.

When news broke of the sermon, integration consultants and politicians rallied to denounce it as ‘medieval’ and ‘bigoted.’ The congregation’s spokesman, Kasem Said Ahmed, said the imam expressed his own personal views in his sermon. Nevertheless, the Islamic Religious Community taped the sermon and took it upon itself to distribute it to schoolgirls in Muslim private schools, so that they and their parents could follow Hleihel’s instructions, daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten reported on Monday.

Here's what one of is colleagues has said about Danish women:

Political uproar after mufti's remarks

An Islamic mufti in Copenhagen, Shahid Mehdi, has sparked political outcry from the left-wing Unity List and right-wing Danish People's Party, after stating in a televised interview that women who do not wear headscarves are "asking for rape."

Oh yeah, these guys fit right in with the rest of Western Civilization. Well, they fit in with the politically correct left anyway.

Hey, how many lesbians does it take to change a light bulb?

That's not funny.

You'll be hearing from my lawyer/Imam.

Yo' iMama.

Thursday, October 06, 2005

Shafts of sunlight illuminate a fog-shrouded meadow in the Cleveland Metroparks Rocky River Reservation in Brook Park, Ohio Wednesday, Oct. 5, 2005. (AP Photo/Mark Duncan)
 Posted by Picasa

The News Of The World

We are having Santa Ana wind conditions here in SoCal. These winds tend to make people feel very agitated. It seems like all of SoCal is in a bad mood. I'm feeling lethargic, bored, and angry; which means I basically feel like a teenager again.


I hope I don't get called up to the chalkboard to do a math problem.

Anyway, since I'm feeling so strange, I'm having trouble getting up the energy to actually think about anything important. However, important stuff has happened today, so I think I'll just link to it, instead of trying to frame and explain.

Bush gave a historic speech today. (Atlas Shrugs posted the speech in it's entirety.) There were a couple of important firsts in it. It was the first time Bush ever acknowledged the Islamist goal of establishing a worldwide Caliphate, and it was the first time he every called the Islamic radicals by their real name; Islamofascists.

The Anchoress has an important post about the ever increasing paranoia and polarization in our national discourse.

Michelle Malkin has a whole bunch of info about the suicide bomber from Oklahoma State University. It looks like he was motivated by Islamic Jihad after all. Surprise, huh? Gates of Vienna has more.

There seems to have been a very credible and frightening threat against the New York City subway system.

Man, I guess that's enough for one day. But, I'm sure more will come up. See ya.

Afghan Female Editor Arrested
For Questioning Sharia-Type Law

If this is what we are getting for our money and blood then maybe we should just pack it all in:

KABUL — Afghan authorities have detained the editor of a women’s rights magazine on the orders of a presidential adviser who deemed one of his articles blasphemous to Islam, a senior government official said yesterday.

Mohaqiq Nasab, editor-in-chief of Hoqooq Zan, or Women’s Rights, was detained on last Thursday on instructions from a religious adviser to Western-backed President Hamid Karzai, the official said....

In his article, the 50-year-old Nasab questioned the need for harsh Islamic punishment for apostates, thieves and others, Sangcharaki said.

Karzai should be told to fire this official and declare such behavior unacceptable, or we should pull out immediately and let him deal with the remnants of the Taliban. The United States should not be expending money and blood for a country which would arrest a human being for suggesting that Sharia rules should not be law.

Blair Says Explosives Used In Iraq
Are Either From Iran or Hezbollah

Tony Blair is putting two and two together. From Associated Press:

LONDON - Prime Minister Tony Blair said Thursday that new explosive devices used against coalition forces in Iraq "lead us either to Iranian elements or to Hezbollah."

While stressing that Britain "cannot be sure" about Iran's possible role, the prime minister linked the issue to the diplomatic confrontation between Tehran and Western nations over Iran's nuclear program.

"There is no justification for Iran or any other country interfering in Iraq," Blair said during a news conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.

"Neither will be subject to any intimidation in raising the necessary and live issues to do with the nuclear weapons obligations under the (International) Atomic Energy Agency treaty."

On Wednesday, Press Association reported that a senior government official said Britain believed Iran's Revolutionary Guard supplied explosives technology to insurgents in Iraq that was used to kill eight British soldiers over the summer.

The official, briefing reporters on condition of anonymity, said there was evidence that Iran was in contact with Sunni Muslim insurgent groups battling coalition forces. He did not specify whether the alleged Iranian technology also was responsible for American soldiers' deaths, according to Press Association.

Tehran's Foreign Ministry dismissed the accusations Wednesday, with a spokesman saying Britain should provide evidence of its claims, according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency.

Hezbollah was formed in 1982 with Iranian backing during Israel's invasion of Lebanon. It has been linked to the 1983 bombing of U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon.

Iran is estimated to provide it with $10 million-$20 million monthly.

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Spain Erects Razor-Wire Security Wall
Threatens Ethnic Cleansings Of Moroccans
Five Migrants Killed
Survivors Herded Into Camps

From Reuters:

MELILLA, Spain (Reuters) - Spain said on Wednesday it planned extraordinary measures to deter African migrants from storming the borders of its North African outposts after 500 people tried to burst through.

Spain said it would invoke for the first time a 1992 agreement with Morocco allowing it to send back to Morocco sub-Saharan Africans who had made it over the razor-wire fences into its North African enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla.

Under the agreement, Spain can ask Morocco to readmit the migrants even though they are not Moroccan.

"We are working with Morocco and in the coming days, possibly tomorrow -- exceptionally -- there may be a repatriation of illegal immigrants," Deputy Prime Minister Maria Teresa Fernandez de la Vega told reporters before leaving Madrid for a visit to Ceuta and Melilla.

She was speaking after meeting the leaders of Ceuta and Melilla in Madrid to discuss what to do about a series of mass assaults by migrants on the Spanish outposts, which have Europe's only land borders with Africa.

Many of the migrants are from countries with which Spain does not have a repatriation agreement so they cannot be sent home. Instead they are often taken to mainland Spain and issued with an expulsion order that cannot be enforced.

Some 500 African migrants charged the fences around Melilla early on Wednesday, and many of the 65 who got through were injured, the government said.

Five died last week in a similar attempt at Ceuta. News reports said all were shot but it is still not clear by whom.

The new arrivals, their limbs and clothes shredded by the wire and some without shoes, raced to the police station, hoping to avoid being sent back by registering with police.

They were then transferred to a dusty and overcrowded Red Cross center where some hugged friends who had reached Spain on previous days.

Dozens of young men limped on sprained ankles about the sun-baked camp, fighting flies off their bandaged hands, some too dazed to talk, others breaking into broad smiles as they talked about Spain.

The city's military hospital was treating 39 of the migrants for cuts and bruises, an official there said.

Spain sent hundreds of troops last week to reinforce security at the enclaves and plans a new fence around them.

Spain is evil. They are like Nazis. They need to be condemned by the United Nations. We must ask the question, do the Spaniards, with their arrogant and racist behavior, even deserve a state?

How Do You Solve A Problem Like Sharia? Part II

Two days ago I posted a portion of aJamie Glazov Front Page Magazine interview with Paul Marshall, who is a senior fellow at Freedom House's Center for Religious Freedom. The topic? The spread of "extreme" Sharia around the world.

Here in the conclusion of the interview, Mr. Marshall proposes ways to fight off this extremist Sharia of the Jihadis:

FP: Sharia still seems like something far away from North Americans. In what ways is it already hitting close to home?

Marshall: Countries that implement extreme Sharia will almost certainly become anti-American. It is also being imposed by vigilantes against Muslims and others in the West: Note the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, and the murder of movie producer Van Gogh last year in the Netherlands. There has been increasing pressure, as in Canada, to implement forms of Sharia in the United States.

FP: What is the best way to fight extreme Sharia?

Marshall: On many levels.

We have to disable the terrorists.

We have to end and counter the propaganda and funding that promotes extremist versions of Islam, much of it stemming from the government of Saudi Arabia. The U.S., notably with the unprecedented public statements by Karen Hughes on September 27, has raised the issue of the Saudis distributing hate propaganda in the U.S. itself, but the Saudis are telling the Administration that what they do elsewhere in the world is none of America’s business. But it is our business when they are spending billions to teach people to hate Americans and other infidels, and we need to end it.

We need to support Muslims who are committed to liberal democracy. (An Indonesian Muslim leader told me last year that he was disgusted by the influx of radical literature flowing into his country from the Gulf, and suggested that some foundations should start getting works of Indonesian Islam translated into Arabic and send it to the Arab world).

We need to expose the destructiveness of this form of Sharia—most Muslims, and others, have no idea of its effects. And also point out that, for all their promises, such Sharia regimes are repressive, widely irreligious, and corrupt Radicals often get support because of their pledge to fight corruption and provide honest government, so we need to point out that Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Pakistan, and so forth are among the most corrupt places on the face of the earth.

FP: This is all very depressing and frightening. Is it possible to end on any kind of optimistic note? Are you optimistic? Will freedom and liberty in the West ultimately prevail in the face of extreme Sharia?

Marshall: In the long term I am optimistic, but we have a tough struggle ahead, and at the moment we are failing in the war of ideas, in large part because we are not sure what ideas we are fighting.

One silver lining of the recent atrocities in Britain and the Netherlands is that they appear to be shaking those countries out of their stupor in the face of jihadis. If we have the resolution we will prevail—right now we have barely begun to fight.

What Paul Marshall says sound great. But, Robert Spencer does not agree in the slightest. You see, he says that we are fooling ourselves when we attempt to make a distinction between "extreme Sharia" and some theoretical moderate Sharia:

Marshall and the other contributors to Radical Islam’s Rules imply the existence of a form of Sharia that upholds justice and goodness without resorting to draconian punishments. They seem to hold to the idea that there is a form of Sharia that is basically good — or at least free of the destructive features of Saudi and Iranian Sharia — when he speaks of Islamic states imposing “retrograde Sharia law”; “the most reactionary version of Islamic law, Sharia”; and of “the destructiveness of this form of Sharia.” But this creates an immediate conceptual problem: the extreme form of something is only an intensification of tendencies that were already present within it. If extreme Sharia is flawed from the standpoint of universal rights and freedoms, then so also must be Sharia itself.

What’s more, Marshall suggests in his introduction to Radical Islam’s Rules that Sharia becomes benign not when it is interpreted in some pristine form, free of Wahhabi and other deleterious influences, but when it is moderated by elements that do not arise from Sharia at all. “Muslim polities,” he explains, “have…usually adopted local and customary law in addition to directly Islamic jurisprudence and, in recent centuries, have borrowed from other legal traditions, especially Western ones.” Extreme Sharia stands in direct opposition to this tendency: “In contrast to this, the Saudis, the source of much of the spread of extreme shari’a throughout the world, seek to entrench only one version of shari’a, an extreme literalist view that they claim is true Hanbali law.”

It would seem from this not only that “extreme Sharia” is Sharia purged of salutary non-Sharia influences from the West, but a parochial, virulent form of the law devised by fanatical Saudi Wahhabis. But do the other major schools of Sunni Sharia jurisprudence (the Maliki, Hanafi, and Shafi’i schools), as well as the Shi’ite Jafari school, actually reject the elements of Sharia that Marshall specifies as particularly characteristic of the “extreme” version?

In the FrontPage interview he enumerates as elements of “extreme” Sharia “stoning adulterous women or cutting off the hands of thieves,” as well as restrictions on “religious freedom and freedom of conscience,” “the status of women,” and “the legal process, especially equality before the law.” But unfortunately, these are not matters on which the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence disagree. While a case may be made that the Saudi Hanbalis and Iranian Shi’ites are virtually alone in their determination to implement and enforce such strictures in the modern age, it is misleading — extremely misleading — to suggest that such elements are inventions of Saudi Wahhabis, and do not exist in mainstream Sharia jurisprudence.

Even some of the essays in Radical Islam’s Rules demonstrate that the distinction between Sharia and “extreme Sharia” is not as clear as perhaps Marshall wishes it were. In his essay “Shari’a in Pakistan,” Maarten G. Barends notes that “one of the features of classical shari’a is the provision that Muslims cannot change their religion and that, if they do, they face a death sentence.” So is this restriction on freedom of conscience a feature of benign Sharia or “extreme” Sharia? Is classical Sharia extreme? Or did the Hanafi jurists of Pakistan learn this precept from the Saudi Hanbali Wahhabis?

In fact, the Muslim Prophet Muhammad’s famous dictum, baddala deenahu, faqtuhulu — “If anyone changes his religion, kill him” — is amply attested in Islamic tradition (cf. Bukhari vol. 9, bk. 84, no. 57), forms the foundation for this restriction on freedom of conscience, and has never been considered negotiable by the great majority of Islamic jurists throughout history. Were they all “extreme”? Of course, like any law it was not universally enforced or even always on the books: journalist Stephen Schwartz, who has contributed an essay to Radical Islam’s Rules, has contended that “the Ottoman caliphate abolished death sentences for apostasy from Islam more than two centuries ago,” although “Western media still widely report that all Muslims believe the penalty for apostasy must be death.” However, the facts are otherwise: according to the Turkish historian Bülent Özdemir, the death penalty for apostasy was only abolished by the Ottomans (and replaced by imprisonment) in 1844, under pressure from the British. So here again the traditional Sharia provision gave way only in the face of Western influence — a welcome influence, to be sure. Nevertheless, it remains true that the Sharia death penalty for apostasy was not moderated because of the force of some internal component of the Sharia itself, in the way that the abolitionist movement in the Christian world arose from Christian principles of the dignity of human beings, which ultimately won out over the Bible’s apparent tolerance of slavery.

Why does this matter? Why not posit the existence of “extreme Sharia” and call upon Muslims to adopt more moderate forms of Islamic law? Ultimately because this approach does not address the deep roots within traditional, mainstream Sharia of so many precepts that violate universal notions of human rights. One result could be Western non-Muslims working to help Muslims implement what the Westerners believe will be benign, moderate Sharia, only to find that this moderate construct has no strength or vital force to keep the “extremists” at bay.

A peculiar unreality now dominates American public discourse about Islam. Those who traffic in comforting fictions — such as but not limited to the distinction between “extreme” and classical Sharia — are lauded in the mainstream media and consulted by the powerful, while those who dare to point out obvious but uncomfortable facts are dismissed and derided as a “fringe.” However, it is the nature of the truth that it will someday, one way or the other, make itself manifest; and on that day, those who have not dared to make it known, whether because of political correctness, fear, or a desire for personal gain, will be relegated to irrelevance.

In the next couple of days, I will will post Part III of this piece, in which I will discuss ways in which Sharia law is tempered by existing structures in emerging forms of doctrinal Islam. The problem, however, is that these new forms are not accepted by purists. Some have said that the current Jihad can be viewed as a Civil War Within Islam. In some ways this is the case. However, there are very few fighting on the good side with any strategy or purpose. That can change, so, let's talk about how.

The Second Holocaust

The Palestinians have been behaving very badly lately. They are all but engaged in a fullon Civil War; Fatah vs. Hamas. Mahmoud Abbas, who has promised repeatedly to disarm the terrorists in his midst, has also continously refrained from doing so.

Given the chaos that is the Palestinian state at the moment, what has Europe decided to do? Bring them to the negotiating table? Issue an ultimatum? Threaten the use of force?

No, they are going to give the Palestinian's $250 million. Yes, that's $250 million to a state both of whose main political parties have vowed to end the state of Israel, and who have done nothing but back that vow up with action.

So, why would Europe pony up money to a political entity dedicated to the destruction of the state of Israel? Well, here's an article by Ron Rosenbaum which postulates a good theory. From the San Francisco Chronicle:

Washington -- The second Holocaust - the possible destruction of the Jews in Israel - is a phrase first coined by Philip Roth in his 1993 novel "Operation Shylock. " It's a novel that seemed incredibly bleak back then. Yet even Roth's darkest imaginings seem optimistic now. Especially when examined by the glare of burning synagogues in France. Or neofascist Jean-Marie Le Pen's showing in the first round of the French presidential election.

We have to examine the dynamic going on in the mind of Europe at this moment: a dynamic that suggests that Europeans, on some deep if not entirely conscious level, are willing to be complicit in the murder of the Jews again.

Roth's narrator believes that there are in Europe "powerful currents of enlightenment and morality that are sustained by the memory of the Holocaust - a bulwark against European anti-Semitism," however virulent. It may be true in the case of some Europeans, although if so they have been very quiet about it. In fact, it seems that the memory of the Holocaust is precisely what ignites the darker currents in the European soul. The memory of the Holocaust is precisely what explains the one-sided anti-Israel stance of the European press,
European politicians, European culture. The complacency about synagogue burnings, the preference for focusing on the Israeli response to suicide bombers blowing up families at prayer rather than on the mass murderers (as the suicide bombers should more properly be called) and those who subsidize them and throw parties for their families.

There is a horrid but obvious dynamic going on here: At some deep level, Europeans, European politicians, European culture are aware that almost without exception every European nation was complicit in Hitler's genocide. Some manned the death camps, others stamped the orders for the transport of the Jews to the death camps, everyone knew what was going on - and yet the Nazis -didn't have to use much if any force to make them accomplices. For the most part, Europeans volunteered. That is why "European civilization" will always be a kind of oxymoron for anyone who looks too closely at things, beginning with the foolish and unnecessary slaughters of World War I that paved the way for Hitler's more focused effort.

And so there is a need to blame someone else for the shame of "European civilization." To blame the victim. To blame the Jews. The more European nations can focus one-sidedly on the Israeli response to terror and not to the terror itself, the more they can portray the Jews as the real villains, the more salve to their collective conscience for their complicity in collective mass murder in the past. Hitler may have gone too far, and perhaps we shouldn't have been so cowardly and slavish in assisting him, but look at what the Jews are doing.

-Isn't it interesting that you -didn't see any "European peace activists" volunteering to "put their bodies on the line" by announcing that they would place themselves in real danger - in the Tel Aviv cafes and pizza parlors, favorite targets of the suicide bombers. Why no "European peace activists" at the Seders of Netanya or the streets of Jerusalem? Instead, "European peace activists" do their best to protect the brave sponsors of the suicide bombers in Ramallah.
One has to put the European guilt complex not just in the context of complicity during World War II. One must also consider the malign neglect involved in the creation of the state of Israel. The begrudging grant of an indefensible sliver of desert in a sea of hostile peoples, to get the surviving Jews - reminders of European shame - off the continent, and leave the European peoples in possession of the property stolen from the Jews during the war. And that was when they didn't continue murdering Jews, the way some Poles did when some Jews were foolish enough to try to return to their stolen homes.

Make no mistake of it, the Palestinians are victims of history as well as the Jews. The last thing the nations of Europe wanted to do was the right thing, which would be to restore the Jews to their stolen homes, and so they acquiesced in the creation of a Jewish state and then did nothing to make it viable for either the Jews or the Palestinians, preferring to wash their hands of the destruction: Let the Semites murder each other and blame the Jews, the Semites they were more familiar with hating.

And now it's so much easier for the Europeans to persecute the Jews, because they can just allow their own Arab populations to burn synagogues and beat Jews on the street for them. Still, there's something particularly repulsive about the synagogue-burnings in France. It goes a long way toward explaining why the Israeli government is acting the way it is now - with a little less restraint against those who murder their children. Yes, restraint: If Israel were to act with true ruthlessness to end the suicide bombings, they would tell the prospective bombers - who go to their deaths expecting that their families will celebrate their mass murders with a subsidized party and reap lucrative financial rewards courtesy of the Saudis and Saddam - that their families instead will share the exact same fate of the people the bombers blow up. That might put a crimp into the recruiting and the partying over dead Jewish children. But the Israelis won't do that, and that is why there's likely to be a second Holocaust. Not because the Israelis are acting without restraint, but because they are, so far, still acting with restraint despite the massacres making their country uninhabitable.

Consider the remarkable New York Times story in which Hamas leaders spoke joyfully of their triumph in the Passover massacre and the subsequent slaughters in Jerusalem and Haifa. Two things made this remarkable. One was the unashamed assertion that they had no interest in any "peace process" that would produce a viable Palestinian state living side by side with a Jewish state. They only wanted the destruction of the Jewish state and its replacement with one in which "the Jews could remain living in 'an Islamic state with Islamic law.' "

That defines the reality that has been hidden by the illusion of hope placed in a "peace process." The Palestinians, along with their 300 million "Arab brothers" surrounding the 5 million Jews, are not interested in a "negotiated settlement."

Israelis are forever being criticized for not negotiating, for not giving away enough of their security, but they have no one to negotiate with who doesn't want to exterminate their state and their people as well, if necessary.

The other remarkable thing was the setting. The interview with one of the four directors of the Hamas mass murderers, a Dr. Zahar, was conducted in a comfortable home in which "Dr. Zahar, a surgeon, has a table tennis set in his vast living room for his seven children."

If the Israelis were as ruthless as the Europeans take great pleasure in calling them, there would be, let's say, no Ping-Pong playing for the murderer of their children.

Now let's talk further about the relationship between the first Holocaust and the next. The relationship between the European response to the first and the likely Israeli response to the one in the making. It might best be summed up by that old proverb: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

The first time, when the Jewish people were threatened by someone who called for their extinction, they trusted to the "enlightenment" values of the European people, as Roth's narrator put it.

Civilized people wouldn't let something like that happen. Pogroms, well yes,
but death camps, extermination? Never. They're transporting us to camps, yes, but what could it be, labor camps at worst? The world -wouldn't let such a thing happen.

Well, the world did let it happen - with extraordinary complacency and not a little pleasure on the part of some.

But I suspect that deep in the heart of most Israelis is the idea that this time we're not going to depend on others to prevent it from happening. We're not going to hope that the world will care that they're killing our children. This time, we won't go quietly; this time, if we go down, we'll go down fighting and take them with us and take more of them if we can, and the rest of the world be damned. Fool us twice, shame on us.

I feel bad about the plight of the Palestinians; I believe they deserve a state. But they had a state: They were part of a state, a state called Jordan, that declared war on the state of Israel, that invaded it in order to destroy it - and lost the war. There are consequences to losing a war, and the consequences should at least in part be laid at the feet of the three nations that sought and lost the war. One sympathizes with the plight of the Palestinians, but one wonders what the plight of the Israelis might have been had they lost that war.

But somehow the Israelis are told that they must trust the world - trust the European Union as guarantors of their safety, trust the Arab League's promises of "normal relations," trust the Saudis who subsidize suicide-bomber parties and ignore the exterminationist textbooks the Arab world uses to tutor its children. The Israelis must learn to make nice; the Jews must behave better with people who want to kill them. I -don't think so.

As a secular Jew, I've always been more of a "diasporist" than a Zionist. I've supported the Jewish state, but thought that it was a necessary but not ideal solution with a pronounced dark side: The concentration of so many Jews in one place - and I use the word "concentration" advisedly - gives the world a chance to kill the Jews en masse again. And I also thought that Jews flourished best where they were no longer under the thumb of Orthodox rabbis and could bring to the whole world - indeed, the whole universe - the exegetical skills that are the glory of the people: reading the universe as the Torah, as Einstein and Spinoza did, rather than the Torah as the universe, as the Orthodox do.

But the implacable hatred of Arab fundamentalism makes no distinction between Jewish fundamentalists and Jewish secularists, just as Hitler didn't. It's not just the settlements they want to extirpate, it's the Jewish state, the Jewish people.

This is the way it is likely to happen: Sooner or later, a nuclear weapon is detonated in Tel Aviv, and sooner, not later, there is nuclear retaliation -
Baghdad, Damascus, Tehran, perhaps all three. Someone once said that while Jesus called on Christians to "turn the other cheek," it's the Jews who have been the only ones who have actually practiced that. Not this time. The unspoken corollary of the slogan "Never again" is: "And if again, not us alone. "

So the time has come to think about the second Holocaust. It's coming sooner or later; it's not whether, but when. I hope I -don't live to see it. It will be unbearable for those who do. That is, for all but the Europeans - whose consciences, as always, will be clear and untroubled.

It seems to me Europe has simply found someone else to do their dirty work for them. What do you think?

Senate To Probe Hate Literature In American Mosques

From the New York Sun, via LGF:

WASHINGTON - The American government is demanding that Saudi Arabia account for its distribution of hate material to American mosques, as the State Department pressed Saudi officials for answers last week and as the Senate later this month plans to investigate the propagation of radical Wahhabism on American shores.

The flurry of activity comes months after a report from the Center for Religious Freedom discovered that dozens of mosques in major cities across the country, including New York, Washington, and Los Angeles, were distributing documents, bearing the seal of the government of Saudi Arabia, that incite Muslims to acts of violence and promote hatred of Jews and Christians.

A Washington-based group that is part of the human rights organization Freedom House, the Center for Religious Freedom also found during its yearlong study that the Saudi-produced materials describe democracy and America as un-Islamic. They instruct recent Muslim immigrants to consider Americans as enemies and the materials urge new arrivals to use their time here as preparation for jihad. The documents also promote the version of Islam officially embraced by Saudi government and several of the September 11, 2001, hijackers, Wahhabism, as the only authentic Islam.

I've been saying for months that the way Muslims can regain the trust of the American people is to sponsor an interfaith day on which they invited Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Mormons, etc., into their Mosques to gather up the hate literature and cart it down to the recycling center.

It looks like law enforcement may end up doing it instead. So, instead of creating goodwill, the Muslims of America are going to have the Senate expose their dirty laundry. Just wait until the American people as a whole (not just "fanatics" like me) come to know that the average Mosque has this kind of hate literature inside. The level of trust will sink to all-time lows.

Category Five Hurricane
109 Oil Platforms Destroyed
No Significant Spills

The Astute Blogger, once again, points out that which should be obvious to us all but, because of our generations peculiar political prejudices, is not. Hurricane Katrina destroyed 109 oil platforms., and yet there were no significant spills, even though 108 of those platforms were built before federal construction standards were tightened in 1988.

The Astute Blogger's conclusion:

It's time that ALL politicians stopped using "environmentalism" as an excuse to prevent MORE drilling in the Gulf (and more drilling off-shore in other areas of the USA, too - like California!) - and "ALL POLITICIANS" INCLUDES Governor's Jeb Bush and Arnold Schwarzeneggar!

If we want to produce more of the energy we use then we MUST drill for more oil in the USA, and off our coast. Since there was NOT A SINGLE MAJOR SPILL after these CATEGORY 5 hurricanes, there is NO LONGER ANY EXCUSE. Neither the environment or tourism based on the environment can be reasonably threatened by drilling. PERIOD. END OF STORY. (More HERE.)

"Oh Dear, Why Do They Hate Me So?"
British Mull Discarding Flag To Avoid Offending Muslims

From CNN, via Dhimmi Watch:

LONDON, England (CNN) -- British prison officers who wore a St. George's Cross tie-pin have been ticked off by the jails watchdog over concerns about the symbol's racist connotations.

The pins showing the English flag -- which has often raised hackles due to its connection with the Crusades of the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries -- could be "misconstrued," Chief Inspector of Prisons Anne Owers said in a section on race in a report on a jail in the northern English city of Wakefield.

The banner of St. George, the red cross of a martyr on a white background, was adopted for the uniform of English soldiers during the military expeditions by European powers to recapture the Holy Land from Muslims, and later became the national flag of England....

Chris Doyle, director of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding, said Tuesday the red cross was an insensitive reminder of the Crusades.

"A lot of Muslims and Arabs view the Crusades as a bloody episode in our history," he told CNN. "They see those campaigns as Christendom launching a brutal holy war against Islam.

"Muslim or Arab prisoners could take umbrage if staff wore a red cross badge. It's also got associations with the far-right. Prison officers should be seen to be neutral."

Doyle added that it was now time for England to find a new flag and a patron saint who is "not associated with our bloody past and one we can all identify with."

Maybe the British should just all crawl under a rock and pretend they're dead. Maybe then, the Muslims will leave them alone.

Posted by Picasa

Jihad Chic

More evidence that the West is decadent and begging to be killed, from Dhimmi Watch:

"Terror fashion" is about to invade cities. The new French brand Anticon is launching a new concept of hooded sweatshirts. Graffiti artists, people with acne, snowboarders or simply superheroes would certainly be into them. To order your sweatshirt, you'll have to wait a few more weeks but we wanted you to be first in the know. Definitely an eye-catching fashion statement!

Posted by Picasa

The French Terror Alert System

Posted by Picasa

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

No Blacks Left To Kill

From London Independent columnist, Johann Hari:

The first genocide of the twenty-first century is drawing to an end
There are no black people left to cleanse or kill

At last, some good news from Darfur: the holocaust in western Sudan is nearly over. There’s only one problem – it’s drawing to an end only because there are no black people left to cleanse or kill.

The National Islamic Front government has culled over 400,000 “Zurga” – a word which translates best as “niggers” – and driven two million more from their homes in its quest to make western Sudan “Zurga-free”.

Their racist Janjaweed militias would love to carry on rampaging and raping, but the black villages have all been burned down and the women have all been raped with “Arab seed” to “destroy their race from within” – what’s a poor militiaman to do?

The first genocide of the twenty-first century has proceeded without a hitch, and the genocidaires have won.

Some of the survivors have washed up on Britain’s shores. Adam Hussein now lives in Doncaster. He explains, “My father was a teacher and my brother was working in a gold mine. We had a small shop in the town and a farm too. In Darfur, people are very kind. Even if you have nothing you can live with other people who help you.”

One day last year, he was out with his uncle and sister when “suddenly we saw an aeroplane come through the town and start bombing. After a few minutes, we saw the Janjaweed, who attacked my sister and uncle and… they died. I saw them catch other young girls and rape them.”

Adam was tossed into jail by the Janjaweed as part of their pogrom. He only escaped by luck, and scrambled to catch a boat which ended up in London.

The primary responsibility for this holocaust lies, of course, with the National Islamic Front government in Khartoum. For decades, they treated Darfur in western Sudan as a nothing more than a source of loyal Muslim conscripts to fight in their civil war against Christians in the South. The “Zurga” were good enough to use as cannon fodder – to die in their hundreds of thousands fighting in a futile war – but not good enough to be allowed into government or to have any public funds spent on them.

When in 2003 the “Zurga” staged a minor rebellion against decades of being treated like this, Khartoum reacted with staggering ferocity. They unleashed the Janjaweed militias – a fancy term for men on horseback with knives and machine guns – and backed their raids up with helicopter gunships.

As the violence grew more and more wild, the hardliners in Khartoum saw this as an opportunity. Darfur sits on the geographical faultline between Arab Africa and black Africa, and since the 1980s Khartoum’s Islamists have longed to “completely Arabize our part of Africa” and drive the “inferior” black population out. This was their chance.

Go read the rest.

Islamism: The Terrorist-Wing Of The Left

From European writer, Wolfgang Bruno, via Dhimmi Watch:

In our clash with Islam, our opponents have at least one major advantage over us: At the beginning of the 21st century, the West has indeed lost its way and sense of purpose. We want to defend "Western civilization", but are we even sure what that is anymore, or was it lost in the multicultural fog somewhere? Is the West primarily defined by its Judeo-Christian religious heritage, or is it something else?

The Western Left has a clear goal: The destruction of the society that vanquished its dreams fifteen years ago. But it does not have, as in the old days of the Soviet Union, the hard power to accomplish this by itself. Their bets are now on Islam. Religious people in the West tend to view secularists as anti-Christian hypocrites, and not without some justification. Devout Catholic Italian Rocco Buttiglione was rejected as the European Union's justice commissioner because of his conservative, religious views. At the same time, the EU has extensive relations with the brutal theocracy in Iran, and few Islamic organizations, not even terrorist group Hamas, ever seem to be too extremist for the EU to cooperate with them. In the USA, the ACLU makes sure that prayer in public schools is just fine for Muslims, but banned for everybody else.

Even though left-wingers may usually be the worst offenders in appeasing Islam, that does not mean that right-wingers are blameless in this either. Economic liberalists are frequently naïve when it comes to cultural and religious differences. Theirs is the blind belief that immigration will always be "good for the economy", ignoring the troubling aspects of Muslim immigration. More pronounced is the fact that many members of the religious Right are even more skeptical of the secular Left than they are of Islam. Quite a few of them tend to view Islam as a potential ally against secularists, and want to cooperate with Muslims in a misguided attempt to revive "religious values" in their own societies.

Read the rest.

San Francisco Mayor Sees
Wireless Service As Basic Right

And I agree with him. First, the article from Reuters:

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said on Monday he considered wireless Internet access a fundamental right of all citizens.

Newsom told a news conference that he was bracing for a battle with telephone and cable interests, along with state and U.S. regulators, whom he said were looking to derail a campaign by cities to offer free or low-cost municipal Wi-Fi services.

Wi-Fi is a short-range wireless technology that is now built into most laptop computers and is increasingly offered on handheld computers and certain mobile phones. Local officials are mulling plans to blanket every nook and cranny of this hilly city of 750,000 residents with Wi-Fi access.

"This is inevitable -- Wi-Fi. It is long overdue," Newsom told a news conference at San Francisco's City Hall. "It is to me a fundamental right to have access universally to information," he said.

Making wireless access affordable to the entire population of San Francisco was a vital step to differentiating the city in order to make it more economically competitive on a state, national and global level, Newsom said.

But the mayor also singled out the power of Wi-Fi as an alternative network to provide emergency information to all citizens in the event a natural disaster such as an earthquake were to strike the city and knock out other communications.


Wireless access can be seen a basic right that should be available not just to business professionals but also lower-income citizens. "This is a civil rights issue as much as anything else," Newsom said.

The mayor said he had no exact figures on how much it would cost to build a wireless umbrella to cover the entire city, but cited general estimates that have ranged from $8 million to $16 million for antennas and other gear.

"My intent is to have the taxpayers pay little or nothing," Newsom said of the municipal wireless project.

Chris Vein, director of telecommunication and information services for the City of San Francisco declined to comment on whether any of the participants planned to use an alternative technology known as WiMAX, which provides higher speed wireless service using fewer antennas.

One company, which Vein declined to name, has proposed an advertising-supported plan for free wireless access, he said. That company appeared to be Google. A Google spokesman on Friday had confirmed that its Wi-Fi access proposal could be funded through online advertising.

Yes, Google. Yesterday, Atlas Shrugs left a very interesting comment about Google on an LGF thread:

Today's WSJ eye-opener about Google implies that free Internet phone service will put the Baby Bells out of business. Maybe so, but the real significance is not Google's offering of voice -- that's old hat by now -- but its use of free wireless broadband to get the service into the marketplace while bypassing a monstrous regulatory slowdown in Washington over whether to apply old telephone rules or old cable rules to new broadband services.

What Google really brings to the table are massive, massive server farms, and the knowhow to deliver individually customized data accurately, instantly and securely. Servers "serve" information. Don't think just Web pages or voice calls or video but all the information and data needed for the fully digital lifestyle. Microsoft, the cable companies, the Bells and others are converging on this business model. The phone companies are trying to get their feet wet with IPTV -- Internet television -- a largely "on demand" service, dispatching individualized content to millions of customers' TVs.

But these efforts are bogged down in a political battle over rewriting the 1996 telecom act, in theory to deregulate all forms of broadband. That sounds straightforward, but even in the GOP-dominated House, the leading bill, pushed by Rep. Joe Barton, has Verizon hopping mad -- because it seems to distinguish what kind of cable set-top box is deserving of deregulation and what kind isn't. Tom Tauke, the former Iowa Republican Congressman who now serves a chief deregulation lobbyist for Verizon, complained that, in typical fashion, "Before we've entered the horse race, some on Capitol Hill are adding weight to the horse and adding length the track."

Google, by offering to provide free wireless to grateful municipalities, hopes to be far down the road in providing the new services while the traditional rivals are still fighting on Capitol Hill. Indeed, Google has been quietly buying up unused Internet backbone capacity for months, making clear that it has much bigger things in mind than just delivering voice calls.

Of course, this brings up the specter of a Big Brother-like Google controlling the stream of all information. However, as long as Google is on contract with the cities to provide the services, then there is still the element of Democratic/Capitalist choice. Simply put, Google will have to provide what the people want or the people can vote not to renew their contract.

The idea that Google could monopolize wireless service is absurd. While it is true that currently Google has a lot of cash to spend, the reality is the cost of extablisihing a wireless network across a city is only going to come down in the future. In other words, eventually small groups of people will be able to establish their own wireless networks. Some people believe wireless routers will become so small in the future that they will be like dust which can be scattered across the city from the air. Some believe wireless networks will be seen as temporary and constantly renewable.

The reason I agree with Mayor Newsom that wirless internet access is a basic human right is not because of what wireless is now, but because of what it is going to become in the future. The future is going to be unlike the world we live in today. The human brain itself will be enabled with chips which will allow them to think faster. These chips will send and receive information via wireless. The human brain will meld with the internet. In other words people will have at their disposal the sum total of all human knowledge at all times, and they will be able to process this information at speeds which we can not even begin to coneive today.

In such a world any human being denied access to wireless internet service will be at an enormous disadvantage. They would be like monkeys compared to human beings. The haves in such a society would be at such an advantage they couldn't help but exploit the have nots. The have-nots would become a permanent underclass of worker bees. Such a permanent disadvantage would go against the values of America. Therefore, more and more, as the years pass, wireless internet access will be seen as a fundamental human right.

Does this all sound crazy? Well, think about it again. Why does it sound crazy? What's to stop it from happening? Do you believe their was an eternal wall erected between the human brain and the technological world? I doubt it.

"Oh duh-duh- Dear
Why Do They Hate Me So?"
Piglet Banned In Britain

(I had to repost this, because I find it so damned funny. However, as my friend Always On Watch noted the other day, it may be funny, but it is also evidence of the dangerous level of intolerance in the Muslim community.

Look closely at the title of the book Piglet is reading. I think that from now on this will be the image I feature in any article on appeasement. It's perfect, isn't it?)

In Britain, they have banned public displays of Piglet, so as not to offend Muslims:

NOVELTY pig calendars and toys have been banned from a council office — in case they offend Muslim staff.

Workers in the benefits department at Dudley Council, West Midlands, were told to remove or cover up all pig-related items, including toys, porcelain figures, calendars and even a tissue box featuring Winnie the Pooh and Piglet.

Bosses acted after a Muslim complained about pig-shaped stress relievers delivered to the council in the run-up to the Islamic festival of Ramadan.

Muslims are barred from eating pork in the Koran and consider pigs unclean.

Councillor Mahbubur Rahman, a practising Muslim, backed the ban. He said: “It’s a tolerance of people’s beliefs.”

Maybe if the British just crawl under a rock and play dead, the Muslims will leave them alone.

Posted by Picasa